Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON WHETHER BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE FOR DEFAULT IN FILING GSTR-3B? 155/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON WHETHER BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE FOR DEFAULT IN FILING GSTR-3B? 155/2020-21
The concept of best judgment assessment is new to indirect taxation and appears to have been borrowed from direct taxes. Section 62(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that where a registered person fails to furnish return under section 39 or section 45 even after service of a notice under section 46, the proper officer may proceed to assess the tax liability of the said person to the best of his judgment taking into account all the relevant material which is available. Recently, an interesting decision was passed by the Appellate authority in the case of M/s OMSAI PROFESSIONAL DETECTIVE & SECURITY SERVICES (P.) LTD. [2020 (121) TAXMANN.COM 192 (AA-GST-AP)] wherein it was held that best judgment assessment cannot be done in respect of non-filers of GSTR-3B. The reasoning adopted and the implications of this decision are the subject matter of consideration of the present update.
                            
The appellant has been filing GSTR-1 returns by declaring outward taxable supplies under GST but have not filed GSTR-3B returns and has not paid the applicable taxes on its outward supplies as declared in the returns in GSTR-1. The assessing authority issued notices to the appellant for filing GSTR-3B but the appellant failed to file the same. Consequently, the assessing authority passed best judgment orders under section 62 of CGST Act, 2017 by enhancing the value of supplies declared in GSTR-1 by 50%. The appellant submitted that the reason for not filing GSTR-3B was the cash crunch faced by them. It was also submitted by the appellant that the conditions for invocation of provisions of section 62(1) were not satisfied as one of the conditions is the failure to furnish returns under section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. It was submitted that as per section 39, returns specified are GSTR-1, GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 and GSTR-3B is not a return prescribed under section 39. Reliance was also placed on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/S AAP & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2019-TIOL-1422-HC-AHM-GST] wherein it was held that GSTR-3B is not a return under section 39.
 
The appellate authority held that enhancing the value by 50% on ad-hoc basis reflects the arbitrariness of the assessing authority in passing best judgment assessment. The appellate authority placed reliance on various decisions of Income Tax/Sales Tax wherein it was held that best judgment assessment is not a wild assessment. Best judgment order must be founded upon some rational basis, relevant material and logic and should not be based on presumptions and guess work. Any best judgment assessment must be supplemented by reason, because reason is the heart beat of any conclusion and fetches clarity in conclusion of any order, as such, without the reason best judgment orders becomes lifeless and amounts to denial of fundamental justice. The Hon’ble High Court also conceded that the GSTR-3B cannot be considered as a return under section 39 of CGST Act, 2017 by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/S AAP & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2019-TIOL-1422-HC-AHM-GST] . Therefore, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the best judgment order.
 
 It is pertinent to mention here that although the government has amended Rule 61(5) with retrospective effect by way of insertion of Proviso clearly stating that where return in Form GSTR-3B is required to be furnished by a person, then such person shall not be required to furnish return in Form GSTR-3 vide Notification No. 49/2019-CT dated 09.10.2019 nullifying the effect of decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and this fact was discussed also. However, still the Hon’ble High Court granted relief to the assessee by declaring the best judgment assessment to be arbitrary. This decision is of immense importance to the assessees for restricting invocation of best judgment assessment for non-filing of GSTR-3B return. 

This is solely for educational purpose. 
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21and u may also follow us on Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com